Jagjit Singh vs State of Punjab

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Heard.

Jagjit Singh, who is facing trial for offence under Sections 302, 307/34 Indian Penal Code, has filed this application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for his release on bail on the ground that there was delay in completion of the trial. He was arrested on 2.12.1991 and charge was framed on 7.4.1992 but till now only one formal witness a head constable and Dr. Mohinder Pal had been examined. There were alleged to be two eyewitnesses of the occurrence Major Singh and Hukam Singh who were real brothers but they were not appearing and were purposely delaying the case.

It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that a reasonably expeditious trial was integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty and the petitioner could not be detained indefinitely as that is against the criminal jurisprudence and amounted to punishment even before the guilt of the petitioner was established. It was further urged that a period of more than two years has elapsed since the arrest of the petitioner and no progress is made in the case. Except the doctor and a formal witness, no other witness has been examined and the eyewitnesses were intentionally evading the process of the court to prolong the trial and to curtail the personal liberty of the petitioner. The petitioner was, therefore, entitled to bail. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the case of Munna alias Kamta Prasad & another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1986(3) Crimes 429. In this case more than a year had passed and trial had not been completed. There was nothing to suggest that the accused persons created and hindrance in their respective trial in order to prolong the case. It was held that if the conclusion of Sessions Trial is not possible within a reasonable time despite cooperation from the accused, in that circumstances other under trial prisoner deserves to be released on bail pending trial on the ground of delayed trial alone.

The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand contended that there was no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure so as to warrant to conclude the sessions trial within a stipulated period failing which due to delayed trial the accused persons were to be released on bail. It was further urged that the delay in this case occurred because of the fact that the lawyers occasionally resorted to strike and sometimes the defence took objection to recording of piecemeal evidence of the eyewitnesses. I find that even though no time is stipulated for completion of a trial in the Code yet a person cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period if he is responsible in any way for the protracted trial. If the trial is not conducted smoothly and concluded speedily despite the accused cooperating with the Court within a reasonable time then he deserves to be released on bail. In the instant case copies of the interim orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, in whose Court the case is pending, have been produced and I have examined the same. These orders show that the petitioner and his coaccused never absented themselves from court but the prosecution failed to produce its evidence. Hukam Singh one of the eyewitnesses had been appearing on some hearings but his brother Major Singh avoided service and bailable warrants had to be issued for bringing him before the Court. These orders show that the petitioner was not in any way responsible for creating any hindrance in the trial and delay in completion of the trial is not on account of his nonco operation.

Considering the circumstances of the case and agreeing with the view held in the judgment cited above I allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail on the ground of delayed trial alone. The petitioner will be released on bail on his furnishing security in the sum of Rs. 20,000/ with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.